Kamla vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:1938)
2025 Latest Caselaw 4444 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kamla vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:1938) on 13 January, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:1938]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20438/2024

1.       Kamla D/o Nanga Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vpo
         Loharwa, Tehsil Dhorimana And District Barmer (Raj.) Hfw
         Reg. No. Hfw0016972.
2.       Pushpa D/o Sharwan Kumar Poonia, Aged About 35 Years,
         R/o Gali No. 4, Ward No. 7, Near Lat House, Ambedakar
         Colony, Bikaner, Tehsil And District Bikaner (Raj.) Hfw
         Reg. No . Hfw0082522.
3.       Sarita Kumari D/o Ajay Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
         Kheteshwer     Colony,       Ward       No.     13,     Balotara,   Tehsil
         Pachpadra And District Barmer (Raj.) Hfw Reg. No.
         Hfw0010608.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical And
         Health Department And Mission Director, National Health
         Mission, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2.       The Director, State Institute Of Health And Family
         Welfare,   Directorate         Nhm,         Swasthya       Bhawan,      C
         Scheme,.jaipur (Raj.)
3.       Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Health
         Services, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. P.K. Poonia.
For Respondent(s)         :



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order

13/01/2025

1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner relies

on a judgment rendered in Priyanka Saini & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No.1766/2017, decided on

01.05.2017 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and states that

[2025:RJ-JD:1938] (2 of 2) [CW-20438/2024]

instead of deciding the controversy afresh by this Court,

petitioners be permitted to file a fresh representation before the

competent authority and the competent authority be directed to

decided the same by passing appropriate order, in accordance with

law, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment.

2. Request seems to be fair.

3. Given the nature of order which is being passed, no

prejudice would be caused to the respondents and, therefore, the

requirement of issuance of notice is dispensed with as no return is

required to be filed by them.

4. In the aforesaid premise, without commenting on the merits

of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the

petitioner to file a fresh representation, which shall be gone into

by the competent authority and appropriate administrative order

shall be passed in accordance with law.

5. Needless to say that the competent authority shall go

through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the

petitioner as mentioned hereinabove and apply its independent

mind on the applicability of the same before passing any order.

6. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible.

7. It is made clear that the direction to consider the

representation shall not be construed as an expression of any

opinion, in any manner.

(ARUN MONGA),J 1-Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)